I believe to sum up the fifty pages of Paley, I would summarize his argument that all complex things or a contrivance must have a contriver, & designs have designers. He goes through many examples comparing a watch to a rock and mill he also goes into depth about the similarities of a telescope and an eye and how all species eyes are similar but different due to function which leads to his main point that there is an intelligible creator and that some species adapt the original design related to function and that humans inherited the power of intelligible design to create watches and telescopes and to use fish skin too polish wood that go did not create the fish skin to be rough to polish wood. What did you think about his arguments?
The Genesis on species discusses the evolution of animals the one problem not resolved was the different evolution linage and the Geographic location and connecting species but now that we know more than we did back in 1871 that the continents and land masses are always growing sinking and moving due to the plate tectonics the evolution examined here is very plausible.
I thought that Barbour's reading was Basically what we discussed in Tuesdays class how evolution and scripture can both be accepted through not reading genesis literally. A clarification on Paley is offered explaining the theology side of natural selection that there was d. The most interesting discussion was that of Darwin's worries or thoughts with publically explaining natural selection and weather that was moral when applied to humans that we let the weak die and not reproduce and the strong prosper and produce the most offspring. But Darwin thought there was a higher morality that exempted humans from the competition side of natural selection. Do you think that humans are above natural selection?
In regards to the Paley, I do believe that every design must have designer because how else things would be conceived. In other words, I do not believe that things spontaneously appeared from nothing and that there must a designer behind every creation. The example that Josh provided, I do not believe that is not a strong argument coming from Paley because human beings by nature are resourceful creatures, so to say that fish is rough to use in order to polish something does not make any sense to me because it could have easily be something else.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question prompt of whether or not I think human beings are above natural selection. I believe that human beings are above natural selection because human beings are very resourceful beings. There are many examples in which I can give in order to explain why I think humans are above natural selection. One example would be modern medicine and how it can prolong one's life even when faced with diseases. Another reason why humans are above natural selcetion would be their resourcefulness, such as being able to take down a 500 pound bear with technology.
I agree with Paley and his argument that humans adapt original designs to suit their needs where as animals cannot, and must evolve and change designs in order to change purpose. This argument is plain to see in the ways people use tools, from using rocks as hammers. People are able to take the thingsd around them and adapt their purposes in order to aid in survival wheras animals do not.
ReplyDeleteI believe humans are in fact above natural selection due to their ability to adapt the function of things and use their cotgnition to aid in their survival. Humans are not above natural selection becuase they lack the ability to adapt the way humans do and must evolve. A human with diabetes would be wiped out due to natural selection but with the discovery of insulin, and and a better understanding of the disease these people can prosper. The way that they are able to overcome natural selection and be successful is one of the many proofs that humans are above natural selection.
I think Paley makes a good argument for human reasoning when he explains that human reasoning does sometimes go against survival of the fittest. If survival of the fittest were the case, morality and "justice" would not really matter because the weak people are left behind and do not need caring for. The fittest would take retribution themselves. Language is one concept that displays the way humans are different than any other animal. Human language (as opposed to animal communication) is so much more meaningful and complex, that it shows an obvious advantages for humankind. It points to the fact that maybe humans are significantly greater than animals, yet equally important in the working world. I guess there must be some kind of designer out there. If there is, then it would make sense to say that some animals thrive from creation and others stay in the original model of creation. I really cannot say for sure what I think about an ultimate designer, but I do think that something has caused creation and that whatever caused it is still interacting through human intelligence.
ReplyDeleteThere are two components to this question. The first is from a religious point of view; ie "God wouldn't let us be involved in such a barbaric system." This argument, enters a veritable mine-field of time-consuming questions and it becomes very difficult to address this without questioning god's existence etc. For argument's sake let's assume that god didn't actively prohibit our potential inclusion in the natural selection cycle.
ReplyDeleteThe second component of this question is, "does our use of technology and safety precautions prohibit the function of natural selection?" My answer would be that it doesn't prohibit, but it certainly does diminish natural selection's effect. As just one example, the inclusion of air-bags significantly reduces the effect of alcohol-induced fatalities and the consequential removal of the driver's genes from the gene pool.
Oh, and by the way, here's an interesting article on the relevance of natural selection in our time
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931757,00.html
Also, I APPLAUD the inclusion of a question in the "prime mover" of the blog. It REALLY helps drive the conversation.
The problem with everything has a designer is that who created the designer. The process cant go on forever. I dont like falling back to the prime mover is God. That seems like a cope out. But thats always been an interesting concept.
ReplyDeleteAs for human evolution. Maybe since humans arent the most fit mammal on earth we evolved to think and outsmart our opponents, and there was no other thought into it. Something that I have always been curious about is why do some people try to be moral and just. I always try to argue that its not religion. Its just how must species work together with their own species.
The idea of a prime mover inherently seems to include that the nature of the being is existence, as discussed by Aquinas. While I would agree with Mike insofar as I find that logic flimsy at best, I do not think it is the most important thing to address with this reading.
ReplyDeleteThe part I find most interesting is the debate over whether or not all our technology precludes or prohibits natural selection. I would argue that it does not, as how one applies all the new technology is very important. On top of that, there are still things that technology cannot do, leaving plenty of room for genetic inequalities to become apparent.
I really liked in NOVA II how it talked about the development of human perceptions as well. When talking about human evolution I always seem to think of it in terms of LOOKING like a human, I guess i never really asked when did we start "ACTING" like one as well.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm curious as to when exactly the soul entered in, which I dont think it really addressed. We can use all sorts of sciience data to look back, but we can never really glimpse back and see where the soul began.